Colorado Amendment 64, Regulation of Marijuana Initiative (2012)

Colorado Amendment 64
Election date November 6, 2012
Topic Marijuana laws
Status Approved
Type Initiated constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

Colorado Amendment 64 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in Colorado on November 6, 2012. It was approved.

A “yes” vote supported allowing the possession and use of marijuana by those over 21 and establishing regulations for marijuana.

A “no” vote opposed allowing the possession and use of marijuana by those over 21 and establishing regulations for marijuana.

Election results

Colorado Amendment 64
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,383,140	55.32%
No		1,116,894	44.68%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Aftermath

Proposition AA

Amendment 64 explicitly stated the intention of a state sales tax to be used to fund the regulation of the marijuana industry as well as education improvements throughout the state. In 2013, voters approved Proposition AA. Beginning on January 1, 2014, Proposition AA imposed two different taxes on the sale of recreational marijuana:

• A 15% excise tax on all recreational marijuana sales in the state. The revenue from this tax was earmarked to fund the construction of schools.
• A 10% sales tax. This was in addition to Colorado's standard 2.9% state sales tax and any local sales taxes that may apply. Revenue from the sales tax part of Proposition AA was earmarked by the measure for the regulation and monitoring of marijuana retail businesses.

Lawsuit over employment termination

In April 2013 the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to uphold the firing of a man who used medical marijuana while not at work. Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic who has a prescription for the drug in the state, contested his termination by claiming he was protected by the Colorado Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute. The law prohibits employers from firing employees for engaging in legal activity outside of work; however, it is silent on the matter of federal versus state law. The court refuted the claim by ruling that the statute does not extend to protecting individuals who violate federal law outside of work.

Overview

The measure legalized marijuana in Colorado.

In 2006, 59% of Colorado voters rejected Amendment 44, which would have legalized the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for those 21 or over. As of 2012, medical marijuana was legal in Colorado under the terms of a bill signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter (D).

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Amendment 64 was as follows:

“

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp?

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Support

Supporters

• Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol
• Democratic Party of Colorado
• Moms and Dads for Marijuana Regulation

Arguments

• The Cannabis Therapy Institute in Boulder, Colorado, announced on June 11, 2010, that it planned to put together a campaign to qualify an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would make recreational use of marijuana legal. The campaign launched in support of the proposed initiative was Legalize2012.com.
• Brian Vicente, executive director of Sensible Colorado stated: "I think people in this state have come to understand that marijuana is not the dangerous substance that law enforcement and the federal government have made it out to be."
• According to Tony Ryan, a former police officer with the Denver Police Department, and who was helping with the initiative: “During my 36 years as a Denver cop I arrested more people for marijuana than I care to remember, but it didn’t amount to one bit of good for our citizens. Keeping marijuana illegal doesn’t do anything to reduce marijuana use, but it does benefit the gangs and cartels who control the currently illegal marijuana trade.”
• State Senator Shawn Mitchell stated, "It’s clear the War on Drugs isn’t working, and we need to try different approaches to this in society."
• Denver resident Wanda James stated about recreational legalization, "If you would like to come home and have a joint and relax with your wife or your husband, I see absolutely no issue with that whatsoever. There are more ways to relax than just someone having a can of Coors or Jim Beam."
• In an article published by Care 2, the article gave three reasons to legalize marijuana. One reason stated, "Critics say that if legalized, marijuana will flood the streets, and all of our children will be reduced to couch-dwelling pot heads. According to the latest report from the federal government, however, marijuana use by Colorado high school students has dropped since the state and its localities began regulating medical marijuana in 2009. Amendment 64 would regulate marijuana and restrict its sale to licensed stores, as is currently done with alcohol. Doing so dramatically reduces consumers’ exposure to harder drugs (often available from the same dude selling the illegal marijuana) and their temptation to experiment with them." Read the other two reasons here.
• According to Mason Tvert, co-director of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, "The nation wastes billions of taxpayer dollars annually on the failed policy of marijuana prohibition. This is an election about Colorado law and whether the people of Colorado believe that we should continue wasting law enforcement resources to maintain the failed policy of marijuana prohibition. Our nation was founded upon the idea that states would be free to determine their own policies on matters not delegated to the federal government. The Controlled Substance Act itself acknowledges that Congress never intended to have the federal government fully 'occupy the field' of marijuana policy. We hope the Obama administration respects these state-based policy debates."

Opposition

Opponents

• The group Smart Colorado was the main opposition to the measure.
• State Senator Steve King stated about the initiative effort and ballot measure: "I honestly believe that when Coloradans go to the ballot box they're going to vote no to dope in Colorado."
• Denver Mayor Michael Hancock was against the measure.

Arguments

• James D. Kellog, founder of LiberTEAWatch.com, stated in a column published by the Glenwood Springs Post Independent about marijuana legalization: "The Constitution of the United States guarantees that American citizens are generally free to make choices about their lives. But when it comes to marijuana and other drugs, we must tread carefully. Coloradans should ponder a simple question. Can our communities conceive an effective plan to keep legalized pot out of our kids' hands? Perhaps we should look to alcohol for the answer."
• Corey Donahue, a marijuana legalization activist, stated that the measure does not go far enough to legalize marijuana. Donahue argued: "It's going to have regulations, so it's going to create more rules. Regulation isn't legalization."
• In a letter written to the Colorado Attorney General urging him to oppose the measure, Smart Colorado Attorney Jon Anderson stated, "As you know, Colorado has the most expansive medical marijuana industry in the country. To further expand their drug profits, this industry will invest enormous sums of money to erase all state restrictions on growing, transporting, and selling marijuana in Colorado. It is critical that Colorado voters understand the serious legal and policy implications of passing such a dangerous law."
• A panel of state legislators stated that legalizing marijuana wouldn't automatically produce a large revenue from the new tax on the drug. According to reports, legislators would be required to refer any tax on marijuana to voters in order for them to approve it. According to State Senator John Morse, "Now all of a sudden we got a new constitutional amendment that may say, 'Hey, we can dictate how legislators vote all the time.' It would be offensive to our system of government in my view, but it may turn out to be the law of the land."
• Amie Baca-Oehlert, vice president of the Colorado Education Association stated, "Drugs and kids don't mix. As an educator and as a parent, I am not comfortable supporting something that I know is harmful to children," Baca-Oehlert said. "Marijuana has impacts, negative impacts, on attention span, brain development, all of these things that impact learning."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures

The following table illustrates the total campaign contributions and expenditures for supporters and opponents:

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$3,002,380.39	$295,304.13	$3,297,684.52	$2,995,547.66	$3,290,851.79
Oppose	$671,837.75	$35,481.69	$707,319.44	$671,648.16	$707,129.85
Total	$3,674,218.14	$330,785.82	$4,005,003.96	$3,667,195.82	$3,997,981.64

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees supporting the ballot initiative.

Committees in support of Amendment 64
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol	$1,815,030.22	$42,535.49	$1,857,565.71	$1,815,030.22	$1,857,565.71
Citizens for Responsible Legalization	$875,880.00	$13,750.00	$889,630.00	$875,880.00	$889,630.00
Coalition to End Marijuana Prohibition	$239,514.63	$234,518.64	$474,033.27	$239,514.63	$474,033.27
Drug Policy Action Colorado Committee	$65,000.00	$0.00	$65,000.00	$58,270.27	$58,270.27
Vote Hemp Yes on 64	$5,557.35	$0.00	$5,557.35	$5,454.35	$5,454.35
Moms and Dads for Marijuana Regulation	$0.00	$4,500.00	$4,500.00	$0.00	$4,500.00
Students for Sensible Drug Policy Colorado	$1,398.19	$0.00	$1,398.19	$1,398.19	$1,398.19
Total	$3,002,380.39	$295,304.13	$3,297,684.52	$2,995,547.66	$3,290,851.79

Donors

The following were the top donors to the support committees.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Marijuana Policy Project	$1,140,224.16	$240,851.64	$1,381,075.80
Peter Lewis	$909,350.00	$0.00	$909,350.00
Scott Banister	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps All-One-God-Faith, Inc.	$125,000.00	$0.00	$125,000.00
Drug Policy Alliance	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00

Oppose

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees opposing the ballot initiative.

Committees in opposition to Amendment 64
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Smart Colorado	$664,833.94	$35,440.69	$700,274.63	$664,680.62	$700,121.31
Safe and Healthy Mesa County	$7,003.81	$41.00	$7,044.81	$6,967.54	$7,008.54
Total	$671,837.75	$35,481.69	$707,319.44	$671,648.16	$707,129.85

Donors

The following were the top donors to the opposition committees.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
S.O.S.	$284,871.00	$0.00	$284,871.00
Trice Jewelers, Inc.	$15,000.00	$22,588.00	$37,588.00
Citizenlink	$30,000.00	$0.00	$30,000.00
Benson Mineral Group	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00
J. Landis Martin	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00
Marilyn Ware	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Analysis and studies

Editor's Note: The following studies do not reflect the views of the neutral Ballotpedia.org. Studies are reported in this article as they are presented, and conflicting arguments may be made against certain studies.

Support

Colorado Center on Law & Policy analysis

A budgetary analysis done by the Colorado Center on Law & Policy analysis on the measure concluded the following results:

• Could generate as much as a total of $60 million in savings and revenue.
  • $12 million dollars of annual savings in criminal justice costs
  • $24 million in excise tax revenue
  • $8.7 million in state sales tax revenue
  • $14.5 million in local tax revenue
• Creation of several hundred new jobs.

Other

Presidential election implications

According to reports, Colorado was a key state in the 2012 presidential election, and the marijuana measure had potential for broad implications that November. Reports said that President Barack Obama's and Republican candidate Mitt Romney's stance regarding marijuana legalization, regulation and taxation like alcohol had the potential to influence voters in Colorado.

Polls

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

• A majority of voters surveyed in a poll released on August 11, 2011 by Public Policy Polling stated they were in favor of legalizing marijuana. The poll had a margin of error of +/- 4.3%, and the question asked to voters who were surveyed was: "Do you think marijuana usage ought to be legal or illegal?"
• Another poll conducted by Public Policy Polling was taken on the issue of marijuana legalization. The results of the poll were released on December 9, 2011. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5%.
• The results of a survey conducted by Rasmussen Polling on June 6, 2012 were released on June 9, 2012 showing strong support for the Colorado Marijuana Legalization Initiative. According to the findings, 61% of those polled support the legalization of marijuana if it was regulated like alcohol and cigarettes. In contrast, 27% were opposed to any legalization and the remaining 12% were undecided. 500 likely voters were polled and the poll had a margin of error of +/- 4.5 percentage points.
• According to a poll released by Public Policy Polling on August 8 of 779 likely voters, 47% said they supported Amendment 64, while 38% of those surveyed opposed it. The poll had a margin of error of +/-3.5%.

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
Aug. 4-7, 2011	Public Policy Polling	51%	38%	11%	510
Dec. 1-4, 2011	Public Policy Polling	49%	40%	11%	793
Jun. 6, 2012	Rasmussen Polling	61%	27%	12%	500
August 8, 2012	Public Policy Polling	47%	38%	15%	779

Lawsuits

2012 measure lawsuits
By state
Arizona • Arkansas • Colorado • Florida • Maryland Michigan • Massachusetts • Minnesota Missouri • Montana • Nevada North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma Oregon • Rhode Island
By lawsuit type
Ballot text Campaign contributions Constitutionality Motivation of sponsors Petitioner residency Post-certification removal Single-subject rule Signature challenges Initiative process

See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2012

Bruce v. Colorado Title-Setting Board

A lawsuit was filed on July 11, 2011, against the proposed ballot measure, stating that the proposal did not make it clear that taxes would be raised. Douglas Bruce, of Colorado Springs, filed the lawsuit with the state Supreme Court.

However, Brian Vicente of Sensible Colorado stated that the five-business days allowed to challenge the measure had already passed. A spokesman for the Colorado Secretary of State claimed that since the ballot measure language was revised, the legal challenge could move forward.

Blue book lawsuit

Proponents of the measure filed a lawsuit to delay the printing of 2012's ballot information booklet, also known as the blue book.

According to reports, the booklet was sent to voters in the state to provide details on ballot measures that are on the general election ballot. The lawsuit argued that the legislative committee struck key language in the section describing arguments in support of the initiative from the final draft of the booklet.

However, on September 13, 2012, the lawsuit was dismissed by Denver District Court Judge Robert Hyatt due to what reports said was a "jurisdictional issue."

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in Colorado

In Colorado, proponents needed to collect a number of signatures for an initiated constitutional amendment.

In order to qualify the initiative for the 2012 ballot in the state, supporters were required to gather 85,853 valid signatures by the August 6, 2012 petition drive deadline.

Hearing

The eight filed proposals were heard on June 1, 2011 by the Colorado Office of Legislative and Legal Services. Suggestions that the committee gave pertaining to the wording of the proposals included clarifying the state's medical marijuana laws and other references to it. Other suggestions included technical matters such as using both "ensure" and "insure" throughout the proposals. According to reports, more specifics about what the phrase "under the age of 21" meant were requested.

Election Review Board

During the week of June 15, 2011, it was reported that all eight filed ballot measures were under review by a state election review board. Supporters of the measure would eventually decide on one measure to collect signatures for.

Challenges were made to the proposed ballot measure language by marijuana legalization supporters during the week of July 6, 2011. Challenges included the accusation that comparing the drug to alcohol was flawed. There was no limit to alcohol purchases in the state, but the ballot proposal included a provision that marijuana possession had limits, according to the challenge. Other supporters of legalization said that it was too much to ask voters to approve marijuana with no limits, hinting that it could fail if placed on the ballot.

Signature collection

Ssignature collection began on July 7, 2011. According to one of the petition drive organizers, Mason Tvert, the campaign aimed to appeal to Republicans and older voters instead of those who are already on board with the proposal.

The campaign behind the initiative used a combination of paid circulators and volunteers. The group spent about $211,369.21 on signature gathering efforts. Since they needed 85,853 valid signatures, this came out to a Cost Per Required Signature of about $2.46. Signatures gathering expenditures were made to the professional petition companies Lamm Consulting and Rocky Mountain Voter Outreach, as well as to various individuals.

As of September 1, 2011, the campaign to put the initiative on the ballot had collected 35,000 signatures, according to reports.

It was reported on September 24, 2011, that supporters had collected nearly half of the signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.

According to reports, supporters of the initiative planned to turn in signatures on January 4, 2012. Supporters stated they would submit more than 155,000 signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State's office. Signatures were submitted that day.

On February 3, 2012, the Colorado Secretary of State announced that the initiative effort had fallen short about 2,500 signatures. According to reports, supporters of the proposal had until February 15, 2012 to submit the additional signatures required to make the ballot.

Supporters of the initiative turned in the additional signatures needed to make the ballot.

On February 27, 2012, the Colorado Secretary of State verified the signatures, placing the measure on the 2012 ballot.

Related measures

Statewide

See also: Marijuana on the ballot

a Colorado Proposition AA, Taxes on the Sale of Marijuana (2013)
a Colorado Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Amendment 64 (2012)

Local

See also: Local marijuana tax on the ballot

a City of Denver Additional Marijuana Sales Tax, Question 2A (November 2013)
a Town of Eagle Marijuana Occupation Tax, Question 2F (November 2013)
a Ballot Issue 2E: City of Littleton Marijuana Sales Tax
a Ballot Issue 1B: Pueblo County Marijuana Sales Tax
a Ballot Issue 2A: Town of Frisco Marijuana Excise Tax
a Ballot Issue 2F: Town of Silverthorne Marijuana Excise Tax
a Ballot Issue 2C: Town of Breckenridge Marijuana Excise Tax
a Town of Carbondale Marijuana Sales Tax Ballot Measure (November 2013)
a Measure 2C: Town of Fraser Marijuana Sales Tax
a Question 2A: City of Manitou Springs Marijuana Sales Tax
a Question 2G: Town of Red Cliff Marijuana Sales Tax

See also

• 2012 ballot measures
• Colorado 2012 ballot measures

See also

2012 Measures

• 2012 Measures
• Marijuana laws on the ballot
• 2012 legislative sessions

Colorado

• Colorado ballot measures
• Colorado ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Colorado Blue Book (2012)